reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I'm here to ask Anderson Cooper about Operation Mockingbird and the CIA's influence on mainstream media. A German reporter claimed the CIA bribed and extorted him to publish stories. Why is there a pro-government slant in Western media, like biased coverage of Putin and Assad compared to Saudi Arabia? Cooper is surrounded by security, preventing conversation on important issues like government manipulation of news. Is he avoiding the question because of his CIA past during college? A prominent German journalist recently revealed that the CIA is still manipulating the media, writing scripts for them. The media is just another branch of the government, a mouthpiece for propaganda, unable to face real questions. Cooper is hiding behind his security.

What's your stance on Palestine? Can you share your thoughts? Hello? Can you talk?

I was concerned that planted stories meant for foreign audiences were being circulated and believed here at home. This would mean that the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through another country. We are looking into this very carefully. We do have people who submit pieces to American journals. I think that getting into the details of whether we have people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks should be handled in a closed session. By 1954, relationships with the CIA had been established at CBS. I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them. We will evaluate the information we have, and we will include any evidence of wrongdoing in our final report and make recommendations. Whether we name the news organizations in our final report remains to be decided.

Why are you doing this? You're kidnapped. What's happening in Palestine? How do you feel about the Palestinians? Innocent civilians are suffering. Why don't you care about them? The numbers are significant—how many people are affected? You can't ignore the plight of innocent civilians we've been advocating for. There’s misinformation being spread. Where’s the evidence of that? Are you serious? Do you want evidence of the atrocities happening, like women being raped?

Russia had a moment like Pussy Riot. What do you think of Trump's similar moment? I don't want to comment on that due to the many controversies surrounding the presidential campaign.

I've spent my whole life in the media, but now I realize that the media is part of the control apparatus. I regret defending the Iraq war and not being more skeptical. When someone makes a claim, the important question is whether it's true or not. I participated in a culture that dismissed anyone who thought outside the prescribed lanes as crazy or a conspiracy theorist, and I'm ashamed of that. The media's purpose is not to inform, but to serve the small group of people who run the world. We should treat them with contempt because they have earned it.

"No. She's an Assad toady." "What does that mean?" "She is a toady? I think that I used that word correctly." "A sycophant." "So she's an Assad sycophant. Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah. That's prove that's known about her." "What did she say that qualifies for? I don't I don't remember the details. I've read it." "I've had her on before. Look up I really enjoyed talking to her." "I like talking to her." "I like talking to her. I don't know about think she's like the mother load of bad ideas." "I didn't know about this." "But doesn't she also did she ever apologize for believing in conversion therapy? For" "I didn't even know she believed in conversion therapy." "Am I crazy?"

Can you believe what you have been seeing on CNN today, ladies and gentlemen? Supposedly, a CNN reporter found Osama Bin Laden took a television camera crew with him, went into Osama bin Laden's hideout, interviewed him and his top leadership, his top lieutenants and colonels and generals. And he came out and told everybody, within three weeks, Osama bin Laden is gonna attack The United States and Israel. Another social engineering project to change the minds and the attitudes and the beliefs of the people of the world and especially The United States to bring about one world socialist totalitarian government. And so I can tell you with a certainty, they must do something terrible in order to stop this backlash and regain the sympathy of the mass herds of sheeple out there.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

How independent is your reporting when you're paid by Bill Gates? Are you a journalist, or what are you? Are you an independent journalist? Why do you spread such pleasurable and completely unfounded claims? Why do you do that? Do you think raids have something to do with the Russian march? Are you deliberately spreading things that... English Translation: How independent is your reporting when Bill Gates is paying you? Are you a journalist, or what are you? Are you an independent journalist? Why are you spreading such enjoyable yet completely unfounded claims? Why do you do that? Do you think raids are connected to the Russian advance? Are you deliberately spreading misinformation...?

So, you called Elon Musk a fascist and implied he's a national security threat. But is that really more of a threat than, say, sleeping with a Chinese spy? What's fascistic about exposing government corruption? I know you just had dinner with lobbyists, and I heard you like to be with only attractive people. So, do you want to comment on any of this? You think Elon Musk is a national security threat, but you sleeping with a Chinese spy isn't? You don't want to comment on that at all? Looks like guilty is charged.

Speaker 0: I began my journey into chronicling the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 1: Some of the most terrifying conversations I've had with some of my dear friends who work inside CIA, and their jobs is to go to other countries, get involved in elections, protests that will help overthrow a regime. It's no secret at this point. The CIA has been doing that for years, for decades. But the most terrifying conversations I've had are the ones where they would look to me and say, my god. Like, the twenty twenty election? We're doing to our people what we do to others. Speaker 2: CIA, the other intelligence agencies were exposed with projects like Operation Mockingbird. Speaker 0: The State Department, USAID, the Central Intelligence Agency went from free speech diplomacy to promoting censorship. Speaker 2: They created, purchased, controlled assets at the New York Times, the Washington Post, all of these top down media structures that used to control the information that Americans got. Speaker 3: I pulled into the driveway, opened up my garage door, these two gentlemen come out of a blue sedan with government license plates. And they came up to me and said, you're mister Solomon? And I said, yes. And they said, you're at the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. The the FBI sent agents over to my home to serve a subpoena. They're questioning me about my tweets. How is that not chilling? Speaker 2: Our whole page on Facebook for the world Seventh day Adventist World Church was removed. Speaker 5: The level of censorship that we experienced from publishing this documentary was beyond anything I could have imagined, and we really didn't even understand why. Speaker 3: We are going to win back the White House. The Russian collusion started broken '16. That's where the big lie first erupted. Speaker 6: Russian operatives used social media to rile up the American electorate and boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. Speaker 0: That's why they went after Trump with the Russia gate and with the FBI probes and with the CIA impeachments and things like that. Speaker 3: My FBI sources told me there's nothing there. And I kept wondering to myself, how could it be that something that's not true be taken so seriously and be portrayed as true? Speaker 7: How do you expand sort of top down control in this society? How do we flip? How do we invert America? Speaker 6: The evidence that the Supreme Court recounts is bone chilling. The federal government would call a private media company and say, cancel this speaker or take down this post. Speaker 3: I mean, just think about this. A sitting president of The United States had his Twitter and Facebook accounts frozen. Our founding fathers could not possibly have imagined that. Is there a chance that this documentary will be censored? Speaker 1: I think there's a huge chance this documentary gets censored. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it's interesting when you look at so many of the big censorship cases in The United States involving COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop. They all go back to a common thread. What is that thread? National security. Speaker 0: Google Jigsaw produced world's first AI censorship product. Things the model were trained on, support for Donald Trump, Brexit referendum that the State Department tried very desperately to stop. These are all these sort Speaker 5: of component pieces of what you called the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 3: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Speaker 2: Industrial Complex. Speaker 7: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Industrial Complex. Speaker 1: I've long felt that it was a bubbling god complex.

"Please explain to me the difference between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and our invasion of Iraq." "Somebody tell me what was different." "Why was ours considered okay and Russia's not?" "The only they're for the same thing, regime change." "Same thing." "We wanna change who is governing Iraq." "Putin wanted to change who is governing Ukraine." "Now don't get me wrong." "I didn't support either war." "They both suck." "But everybody you notice our national media doesn't bring that up at all, do they?" "And you notice they brought up now the Fed or the international courts have made it so Putin can't travel now because he's considered a war criminal." "Let's not forget the international courts did the same thing with Bush and Cheney after the invasion of Iraq." "Why do you think George Bush can't leave The US?"

"99% of the media is run by a single group of people, and that 1% that is not That's crazy." "A complete, like, ethnic Yeah. Monopoly, an ethnical monopoly." "They know exactly what they're doing." "through the media, do you have a lot of social control?" "I really believe our democs is the illusion of choice." "Republicans and Democrats. They all they all work for the same freaking people." "it's the illusion of opinion." "left one CNN, right wing Fox News, run by the same people." "They have you arguing over this, like, small stuff." "they all want you to agree on Israel." "there are certain things they want you to agree on, then you have to argue on it." "It's the illusion of opinion. Democracy, illusion of choice. The media, illusion of opinion."

The discussion centers on concerns that planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back and be circulated in the United States, potentially allowing the CIA to manipulate U.S. news by channeling it through a foreign country. There is emphasis on looking at this very carefully. Questions were raised about whether any people paid by the CIA contribute to major American journals or to television networks. One speaker notes that some individuals submit pieces to American journals, and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who work for television networks. The response indicates that this is a level of detail better addressed in executive session. It is stated that at CBS, the CIA had contacted the organization, and that by the time the head of the news and public affairs operation was appointed in 1954, “the ships had been established,” and he was told about them and asked to carry on with them. Regarding final reporting, there is a commitment to evaluate all the detailed information and to include any evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety in the final report and to make recommendations. The question is raised again about whether there are people paid by the CIA contributing to national news services such as AP and UPI, with the response again preferring to handle those details in executive session. When asked whether the new organization’s final report would be named, the speaker indicates that this remains to be decided. It is asserted that correspondents at that time were allowed to make use of CIA agent chiefs of station and other CIA executive staff as sources of information useful in their assessments of world conditions. The question is asked whether this continues today. The response acknowledges that it probably does for a reporter, but notes that due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter would need to be much more circumspect now, and must be careful not to be viewed with considerable disfavor by the public.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

"this is a good thing because it brings The United States into a conflict that we've been involved in on an existential level for decades." "There was an Israeli spy ring in The United States, and they clearly knew nine eleven was coming." "They aired it." "They're real people." "They're not crazy." "Those are factually true statements." "How many Shiite terror attacks have there been in The United States in my lifetime? Let me do the math." "Zero." "Don't tell me that the greatest threat we face is Iran. That's a lie." "You're telling it on behalf of a foreign power." "Iran is not even in the top 10 list." "Our problems would include tens of millions of foreign nationals living illegally in my country." "Nobody knows their identities." "A drug crisis that's killed millions of Americans over the past twenty years." "My family was attacked." "It's true." "And everyone kind of knows it's true."

Law enforcement and intel agencies shape news coverage extensively. Bob Woodward, a former naval intel officer, transitioned to a reporter for the Washington Post. Anderson Cooper is seen as bland and possibly connected to the government. Intel agents from various countries monitor Twitter, censoring content. Journalists should challenge power, not serve it. Many journalists, like Joe Scarborough, prioritize serving those in power over their audience. The concept of Mockingbird, a program to influence media, is now mainstream.

Intel agencies have a significant influence on television broadcasts, Facebook, and Google. Many anchors, including a national security reporter, act as mouthpieces for the Pentagon and the CIA, knowingly spreading lies. This is a common practice, even at CNN. These reporters read government propaganda from intel agencies, and it's frustrating and offensive, regardless of whether one agrees with the lies or not. For instance, when the CIA and Pentagon claimed that Bashar al Assad used poison gas, there was no evidence to support it. Despite this, many people were killed in response.

Clayton discusses with Kevin Ship, a former CIA officer and author of Twilight of the Shadow Government, how false flags allegedly unfold and why they persist in public discourse. Key points: - False flags are planned for months in advance. Kevin suggests that covert operations typically identify a single boogeyman to avoid implying a broader conspiracy, arguing that a lone perpetrator allows authorities to claim “we got him” and deny wider conspiracy. - The pattern cited includes one individual who previously showed no criminal tendencies, who then commits a violent act, followed by quick attribution to a designated boogeyman, with the implication that the operation is over and left without further inquiry. - Specific incidents discussed include the Bondi Beach attack in Australia, with references to Mossad’s involvement and claims that Iran is behind the attack to push for war with Iran. The exchange questions the Australian government’s role and the relevance of Mossad’s presence in investigating the incident. - The conversation links these operations to broader intelligence ecosystem dynamics, noting a close collaboration and “frenemies” relationship between the CIA and Mossad. They describe Mossad as having a pervasive role in Middle East intelligence and describe a history of interactions where Mossad and the CIA share high-level information and sometimes operate in tandem, though at times Mossad may target the CIA as well. - The discussion points to prior examples of disinformation, such as the 9/11 events, where perceptions of evidence (e.g., a passport found near the World Trade Center) are presented as straightforward proof, while being described as an example of ineffective or misused disinformation to shape public belief. - In addressing media influence, Kevin references the CIA’s media liaison office and programs designed to influence how news is presented in the United States. He contends that “Mockingbird”-like media consolidation and complicit outlets help propagate these narratives, especially to audiences that rely primarily on television news. - The conversation notes a perceived pattern of actors or individuals appearing at multiple, unrelated events (e.g., a person claiming responsibility or being present at various incidents) as part of the alleged orchestration of false flag narratives. - They discuss the effectiveness of false flags: despite growing scrutiny and critical reporting, they argue that false flags continue to influence public perception, aided by psychological studies within intelligence communities and the reliance of many viewers on mainstream media for information. - Kevin reiterates his belief that the shadow government—particularly the CIA’s control of elected government and media propaganda programs—remains powerful, with ongoing operations designed to manipulate thinking and push narratives that serve certain geopolitical aims. He emphasizes that false flags are a recurring tactic and predict more of them in the future. - The conversation closes with Kevin urging readers to consider his book Twilight of the Shadow Government and to engage with his perspective on the CIA’s influence over media, politics, and public belief.

Why are countries like Iran, which hasn't invaded anyone for about four hundred years and doesn't threaten us, being threatened? Why does Israel have impunity? Why do journalists write down what governments tell them instead of questioning them? The mistakes that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2002/2003 are being repeated. These are questions that demand to be answered by journalists and the public.

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff to the person who wrote it, right? I don't know how they got it before you. You should ask Yvonne. But you're part of the government working with the media to target journalists. I haven’t received the letter yet. Can you send it to me? It’s on its way, but you’re hard to find. How did the Washington Post know to request it? I have no idea how they became aware. I think you're lying. Someone from your office must have leaked it. There are other ways they could have known. Like who? Many people in government could have been aware. So someone in your office knew about the letter? Sure. Then how did the Washington Post find out? That’s faulty logic. You've been busy writing letters threatening journalists. I’m not the author. It’s a fight of good versus evil in this country.

I overheard two CNN reporters saying they only trust Trump, which surprised me. When I saw their CNN credentials, I was shocked they would report things they don't believe in. It made me question their integrity.

Speaker 3 launches a documentary-style indictment of Tucker Carlson, asserting he has “many connections Tucker Carlson has to the CIA and other groups,” that Carlson is “leading a major part of America off a cliff with his false conservative platform,” and that he is “a total shill, a puppet being used to distribute propaganda.” The speaker argues the left-right paradigm is false, claiming CIA agents train people in media propaganda regardless of network (CNN or Fox). Anderson Cooper is cited as an example, with the claim he interned at the CIA and was born into the Vanderbilt family, making him the face of CNN and Carlson the face of Fox. The speaker then traces Carlson’s background in detail: born 05/16/1969 in San Francisco; his father Richard Carlson divorced and remarried Patricia Swanson; Carlson attended multiple boarding schools in Switzerland and Rhode Island; graduated from Trinity College in 1991. The claim is made that Carlson attempted to join the CIA after graduation but was denied, with the suggestion that his journalism path was encouraged by his well-connected father. The narrative then catalogs Carlson’s father’s career: Richard Carlson started in journalism as a copy boy at the Los Angeles Times and a UPI reporter; later worked at several LA and San Diego outlets; became involved with San Diego Federal Savings and Loan (headed by Gordon Luce, a Reagan-era figure); ran for mayor of San Diego in 1984 and lost; Reagan announced his nomination to the United States Information Agency in 1986; served as Director of Voice of America, described as a propaganda broadcasting division; VOA is linked to the CIA, with the assertion that its purpose shifted from abroad broadcasting to domestic and international propaganda, including a CIA black site in Thailand (Cat’s Eye/Detention Site Green). The father’s later roles included ambassador to the Seychelles and CEO of King World Public Television; he became vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (an Israel-lobby-linked group). The speaker asserts that Carlson’s path mirrors his father’s, arguing that Carlson’s early journalism work included policy review (Heritage Foundation publication), where Heritage Foundation’s founders (Paul Wyrick, Edwin Feulner, Joseph Coors) are described as influential, with Feulner allegedly connected to KCIA donations and UN reform task forces linked to CFR and the Project for the New American Century. The Heritage Foundation’s funding is linked to Coors, Chase Manhattan, Pfizer, Dow, Sears, GM, Amoco, Mobil, with David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan leadership invoked to support broader conspiratorial links among the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, CFR, and related networks. The claim is made that Buckley and Crystal (William Crystal) were CIA-connected or staffed, and that Tucker Carlson’s journalism career spanned outlets including Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Weekly Standard, New York Magazine, Reader’s Digest, Slate, Esquire, The New Republic, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, The Wall Street Journal, and television work for CNN, PBS, MSNBC, before Fox News. The video then connects Carlson to Murdoch’s News Corporation (which also owned The Weekly Standard) and to Genie Energy, with other board members named such as Jacob Rothschild and James Woolsey; Carlson’s overlap with Rockefeller- and Rothschild-linked networks is highlighted, including Charlie Rose’s Vanity Fair article about a Rothschild–Rockefeller merger and Rose’s program history. The speaker argues “these overlaps” explain why Carlson ridicules 9/11 skeptics and avoids addressing Rothschilds on his show, implying his gatekeeping role. A separate segment covers a Washington, DC climate-conspiracy joke by a city official about Rothschilds controlling the climate, followed by a joking discussion about microaggressions at UC Santa Cruz. Speaker 3 reiterates the claim that Carlson is “CIA?” and contends mainstream media is controlled, citing Operation Mockingbird as a precedent. The speaker concludes that even if direct government documentation isn’t present, Carlson’s numerous connections and the overlaps among the elites make his CIA linkage plausible to believe, urging viewers to do their own research and turn off the television. The transcript then shifts to a late-appearing discussion involving a Ron Paul event in Minneapolis (2008) with speakers debating 9/11, Building 7, and government involvement, with participants sharing mixed views on 9/11 conspiracy theories, evidence, and the appropriate stance on such claims. Towards the end, Steven Jones, a Brigham Young University physicist, offers a televised segment presenting a hypothesis that explosives might have contributed to the World Trade Center collapses, including Building 7, mentioning molten metal in basements, thermite, and a kink in the collapse symmetry, while acknowledging FEMA’s report noting only a low probability for the conventional (fire) hypothesis and calling for further investigation. The exchange ends with a brief acknowledgment of the need for follow-up by viewers. A final red-string/prophecy monologue introduces a biblical-tinged conspiracy frame involving “Jews” and “the red string,” Rahab the harlot, and spies, cutting off before a concluded point.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit. I am convinced based on my own sources and my own reporting on this story, he wasn't one of ours. So he was an American, which leads basically three options, MI six, Saudi or Mossad? Yep. Which one would you choose? Well, I mean it's possible that that's the reason everything is getting buried, that there is some treasure trove and it's getting buried because How many people here believe that? Raise your hand. Okay. I'd say about half half the hands think that it's being buried because of an Israeli thing. It could be. I I really don't know. And I no evidence to suggest that. I'm neither.